Kerala High Court
Chelur Corporation vs Seetha Ramaswamy on 12 June, 2024
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1946
RCREV. NO. 193 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.2021 IN RCA NO.64 OF 2019 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-VI & RCAA, ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER DATED 29.08.2019 IN RCP NO.112 OF 2015 OF III ADDITIONAL
MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM (RENT CONTROL)
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS 1 & 3/PETITIONERS 1 & 3:
1 MRS.SEETHA RAMASWAMY,
AGED 75 YEARS
D/O SACHIDANDA IYER 6A, GANAPATHY LAYOUT , K.K.PUDUR,
COIMBATORE, PIN - 641038
2 MRS.LATHA BALASUBRAMANIAM,
AGED 71 YEARS
D/O SACHIDANDA IYER 13, BHARATHI PARK, 7TH CROSS ROAD,
COIMBATORE, PIN - 641011
BY ADVS.
P.MARTIN JOSE
P.PRIJITH
THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
R.GITHESH
AJAY BEN JOSE
MANJUNATH MENON
SACHIN JACOB AMBAT
V.A.JOHNSON
HANI P.NAIR
ANNA LINDA V.J
HARIKRISHNAN S.
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT & 2ND APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT & 2ND
PETITIONER:
1 M/S.CHELUR CORPORATION,
CHELUR BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. REP. BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER R.JAYASANKAR., PIN - 682035
RCRev. Nos.193/2022, 163/2022
-2-
2 MRS.VIJI WARREN,
AGED 73 YEARS
D/O SACHIDANDA IYER 16282, TYPHOON LANE ,
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA - 92649,
U.S.A.REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
P.S.SADASIVAM, S/O.P.S.SUNDARESAN, CHARTERED
ACCOUNTANT, 201,RADHAKRISHNA ROAD, TASA ROAD,
COIMBATORE, PIN - 641038
BY ADV:
SRI M P SREEKRISHNAN
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 12.06.2024, ALONG WITH RCRev..163/2022, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RCRev. Nos.193/2022, 163/2022
-3-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA,
1946
RCREV. NO. 163 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.2021 IN RCA NO.65 OF
2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-VI & RCAA, ERNAKULAM
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2019 IN RCP NO.112
OF 2015 OF III ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM (RENT
CONTROL)
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN RCA/RESPONDENT IN RCP:
M/S.CHELUR CORPORATION
CHELURBUILDING, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
BY ADVS.
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
A.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA
M.P.SREEKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN RCA/PETITIONERS IN RCP:
1 SEETHA RAMASWAMY
6A, GANAOATHY LAYOUT, K.K. PUDUR,
COIMBATORE-641 038, PIN - 641038
2 MRS. VIJI WARREN,
16282, TYPHOON LANE, HUNTINGTON BEACH,
CALIFORNIA-92649, U.S.A, REPRESENTED BY ITS
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,P.S.SADASIVAM,
S/O. P.S.SUNDARESAN, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, 201,
RCRev. Nos.193/2022, 163/2022
-4-
RADHAKRISHNA ROAD, TASA ROAD,
COIMBATORE, PIN- 641 001.
3 MRS. LATHA BALASUBRAMANIAN,
13, BHARATHI PARK, 7TH CROSS ROAD,
COIMBATORE-641 011,
BY ADVS.
MARTIN JOSE P
P.PRIJITH(K/233/2005)
THOMAS P.KURUVILLA(K/420-B/2005)
AJAY BEN JOSE(K/729/2012)
MANJUNATH MENON(K/000474/2015)
V.A.JOHNSON(J-733)
HANI P.NAIR(K/194/2006)
R.GITHESH(K/630/2002)
ANNA LINDA V.J(K/1201/2020)
HARIKRISHNAN S.(K/497/2019)
SACHIN JACOB AMBAT(K/734/2016)
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(S-571)
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 12.06.2024, ALONG WITH RCRev..193/2022, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RCRev. Nos.193/2022, 163/2022
-5-
ORDER
[RCRev. Nos.193/2022, 163/2022]
1. The present Rent Control Revisions are
directed against the judgments of courts below.
R.C.P.No.112 of 2015 filed by the landlord was allowed
by fixing fair rent as Rs.20/- (Rupees Twenty only) per
sq.ft and the appellate authority in R.C.A.Nos.64 and 65
of 2019 reduced the rent to Rs.15/- (Rupees Fifteen only)
per sq.ft. Vide order dated 16.11.2021. R.C.Rev.193 of
2022 has been preferred by the landlord against the
order in R.C.A.64/2019 for enhancement of the fair rent
and R.C. Rev. 163 of 2022 by the tenants against the
order of the appellate authority in R.C.A.No.65 of 2019.
2. The facts in brief for adjudication of the
controversy are as under:
The tenant had taken the scheduled building in the
land comprised in survey No.862 of Ernakulam Village by
virtue of the lease deed dated 12.04.1983 at the rent of
Rs.3,750/- (Rupees three thousand seven hundred and
RCRev. Nos.193/2022, 163/2022
fifty only). The predecessor-in-interest of the landlord
instituted R.C.P.No.116 of 1986 before the Rent Control
Court, Ernakulam claiming the eviction of the tenant for
personal necessity. The petition was dismissed. An
appeal and Revision Petition preferred before the
appellate authority, High court was also dismissed.
Matter reached the Supreme Court by way of an SLP.
On grant of leave was assigned Civil Appeal No.565 of
2005. The Supreme Court modified the orders of the
court below and fixed the monthly rent at Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with effect from
01.01.2009 with a condition that the fixation of the rent
was tentative, which shall not prevent the parties from
seeking the determination of the fair rent in the
competent court of law. It is in that background the
aforementioned rent petition was filed claiming the rent
at the rate of Rs.100/- (Rupees hundred only) per sq.ft.,
on the premise that it has all the facilities of electricity,
water connection and situated by the side of the main
RCRev. Nos.193/2022, 163/2022
road. Major shopping complex and other kinds of trade
and business are being conducted in the vicinity.
3. The aforementioned contentions were objected
by the tenants and alleged that the scheduled building is
situated on a twenty(20) cents of land and for
maintaining the building, are spending money of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) per year. The rent
fixed by the Supreme Court had already been paid, which
is quite reasonable, thus, there was no cause of action in
favour of the landlord to claim the exorbitant rate of
rent. The existence of major shopping complex and
trades centers nearby the building and the vicinity were
emphatically denied. Since the parties were at variance
learned Rent Controller framed the following issues.
"1. Are petitioners entitled to get an order u/s
5(1) of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act 1965 as prayer?
2. What is the order as costs?"
4. Landlord besides examining herself as PW1,
examined another witness PW2 Ramachandran Nair and
RCRev. Nos.193/2022, 163/2022
brought on record Exts.A1 and A2 certified copy of the
title deed and fair value statements of Survey No.862. On
the other hand, the tenant examined R.Jayasankar DW1
and brought on record documents Exts.B1 and B2
property tax receipts and copy of the lease deed. Court
Commissioner was also appointed and the documents
prepared by him at the time of the inspection were
examined as C1, C1(a), C2, C2(a), C2(b) to C2(r) and
C2(s) i.e., Commission Report, sketch, Commission
Report, valuation report, photo and again sketch.
5. On analysis of the evidence brought on record,
learned Rent Controller arrived at a finding that the area
in occupation of the tenant was 6969 sq.ft and assessed
the fair rent at Rs.20/- (Rupees Twenty only) per sq.ft
from the date of the institution of the petition i.e., in
2015. R.C.A. Nos.64 and 65 of 2019, aggrieved of the
aforementioned findings, were preferred by the tenant
and the landlord respectively.
6. Learned Appellate authority on re-examination
RCRev. Nos.193/2022, 163/2022
of the facts and the evidence brought on record
particularly Ext.P2 rent deed dated 10.04.1983 fixed the
rent at that point of time as Rs.3,00,750/- (Rupees Three
lakh seven hundred and fifty only) which was increased
by the Supreme Court by Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty
five thousand only), found that the rent fixed by the Rent
Controller at the rate of Rs.20/- (Rupees Twenty only)
per sq. ft. was excessive and reduced the same of Rs.15/-
(Rupees Fifteen only) per sq.ft. for an area of 6969 sq.ft.
7. Mr.M.P.Sreekrishnan submitted that the
contents of the lease deed have completely been ignored
by the courts below. The area under lease has been
totally misunderstood, for, the premises measuring 2500
sq.ft were taken on rent. The commissioner report was
objected to but the objections have not been taken into
consideration in a correct perspective. Landlords have
failed to place on record any material to show that
buildings in the vicinity or the area where the building is
situated would fetch the rent at the rate of Rs.100/-
RCRev. Nos.193/2022, 163/2022
(Rupees hundred only) per sq.ft.
8. Learned Appellate authority without
appreciating the aforementioned facts, on surmises and
conjectures, reduced the rent from Rs.20/- (Rupees
Twenty only) per sq.ft. to Rs..15/-(Rupees Fifteen only)
per sq.ft., whereas the Rent Controller could not have
fixed Rs.20/- (Rupees Twenty only) per sq.ft. At the best
it could have been Rs.5/- (Rupees five only)per sq.ft.
9. The clauses of the lease deed have also been
misread for the reason that the permission to use the
compound cannot fetch the exorbitant rent as claimed. It
is settled law that the evidence beyond pleadings cannot
be looked into. The categoric case of respondents -
landlord in the rent petition was that the tenanted
premises are of 2500 sq.ft. In support of the contention
relied upon the ratio decidendi culled out by Supreme
Court in National Textile Corporation Limited Vs.
Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and Others (2011)
12 SCC 695, thus, there is an abdication.
RCRev. Nos.193/2022, 163/2022
10. Mr.Sreekumar learned Senior Counsel
submitted that the Commissioner Reports are the
testimony to prove that the tenant during the subsistence
of the tenancy had converted the compound permitted to
be used by raising a temporary structure and have been
storing the furniture manufactured for the purpose of the
sale, thus, the extent of tenanted premises had increased
which came to light only on inspection. The attention of
this Court was also drawn to Clause 4 of the lease deed.
The testimony of PW2, the adjacent shop keeper has
been totally brushed aside. The said witness
categorically stated that the rent in the vicinity was
Rs.40 per sq.ft, i.e., much higher than fixed by the courts
below. Therefore, the amount as fixed by the Rent
Controller as well as appellate court are liable to be
enhanced considerably. As regards the contention
evidence beyond the pleadings the tenant had no
knowledge about the usage of the compound by the
tenant by raising the temporary structure as the landlord
RCRev. Nos.193/2022, 163/2022
was not permitted to visit the tenanted premises.
11. We have heard Mr.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner - tenant in
R.C.Rev 163 of 2022 and Sri.Sreekumar S. learned senior
counsel assisted by Mr.Harikrishnan S., learned counsel
appearing on behalf of petitioners - landlords in
R.C.Rev.193 of 2022 and appraised the paper books.
12. Clause 4 of the lease deed reads as under:
"The tenant will have the right to use the
compound of the building as appurtenant to the
enjoyment of the building but shall not
construct or put up any structures in the
compound without the consent in writing of the
landlord."
13. The other clauses of the lease deed also do not
mention the area under tenancy. However as per the
averments set out in the pleadings in the aforementioned
RCP, landlord, no doubt, stated the area of the tenanted
premises to be 2500 sq.ft. Obviously, it was meant to be
used by the tenant. However, without permission of
RCRev. Nos.193/2022, 163/2022
landlord converted the compound into a tenanted
premises by raising a temporary construction. This fact
only surfaced on the basis of the Commissioner Report,
perhaps during subsistence of the tenancy the business
of the tenant increased substantially and had no space to
store. The factual aspect could not be denied despite
submission of the objection. It is settled law that during
the course of the evidence case can be built on the basis
of pleadings that have to be brief and concise as per
provisions of Order 6 Rule (1) of the CPC. The evidence
brought on record clearly deciphered for the area under
usage of the tenant. Thus, the argument that the
evidence beyond the pleadings could not have been
looked into does not merit acceptance.
14. Tenant has not been able to bring out any
substantial evidence like the lease deed of the area or
the tenancy in the vicinity to belie the statement and the
material brought on record on behalf of the landlord.
Despite extensive cross examination of the landlord and
RCRev. Nos.193/2022, 163/2022
PW2 the tenant of the vicinity, nothing contrary surfaced.
Though the claim set out in the rent petition was to the
tune of Rs.100/-(Rupees hundred only) per sq.ft but the
Rent Controller on the analysis of the evidence noticed
above assessed Rs.20/- (Rupees Twenty only) which has
been reduced by the appellate authority.
15. Keeping in view of the nature and area of the
building under the usage of the tenant and the vicinity,
we are of the view that the findings given by the
appellate authority fixing the rate of rent at the rate of
Rs.15/- (Rupees Fifteen only) per sq.ft of the area
measuring 6969 sq.ft. is perfectly legal and justified and
do not call for interference.
16. Now the question raised is whether the tenant
can be burdened to pay the fair rent fixed by the
appellate authority from the date of the institution of the
petition or from the date of the order of the appellate
authority. The Rent Petition was instituted in 2015,
whereas the appellate authority decided the appeal on
RCRev. Nos.193/2022, 163/2022
16.11.2021. In order to strike equity considering that
there was a slump in the business owing to the onset of
the COVID, we thus deem it appropriate to modify the
order of the appellate authority by the fixation of fair
rent at the rate of Rs.15/- (Rupees Fifteen only) per sq.ft,
with effect from 01.01.2021. Tenant is granted two
months' time to pay the arrears. In case of default the
landlords shall be entitled to take necessary steps, in
accordance with law.
Revision petitions are disposed off.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
vv
